Paul Carroll at DxO Labs just posted a Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS review comparing it to the new image stabilized wide-angle primes and its predecessor Canon EF 35mm f/2.

Here is an excerpt from the Measurement test: "With an Overall DxOMark Score of 29 tested on the Canon EOS 5D MKII the Canon EF 35mm F/2 IS USM ranks 4th overall just behind the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM, Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM and another wide-angle option the $899 Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A. With a Lens Metric Score for Sharpness of 17P-Mpix tested on the Canon 5D MKII the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM offers an improvement in Sharpness over current wide-angle offerings such as the Zeiss Distagon T 35mm f/2 ZE Canon, with 15P-Mpix, or the Samyang 35mm F1.4 AS UMC Canon with just 12P-Mpix."

This confirms my hopes that the new Canon 35 IS would be a top lens, and not be discredited by the new Sigma 35. The Canon looks to hold its own and be a top performer in the the Canon prime line-up. The accutance map was really impressive. I've liked the original EF 35/2, except for its weak sides/corners, and this new lens remedies that, making it acceptable for architecture and landscape.

I was also impressed with the 28 IS. Even though it had slightly lower sharpness, it had more uniform sharpness across the frame -- more than either the 24 IS or 35 IS, and that supports my hopes and why I purchased that wider angle lens.

I can hardly wait for the price on the 35 IS to drop into discounted specials! I know I'll be much happier with this lens than the Sigma with the similar performance plus added IS bonus. I sold my Zeiss ZE 35/2 some time back, in anticipation of such lens IQ as this, and it seems I won't be disappointed!

Fred -- You already have this new 35 IS lens. Do you have any preliminary thoughts or test shots you could share?

sataraid1 wrote:
$850 for a 35 f/2 is just lunacy.
It's all relative. That is the intro price and will likely fall. These lenses have all been available for a long time and still cost more (and don't have image stabilization or autofocus):
Zeiss 35/2 ZE (for Canon) is $1,117
Zeiss 35/2 ZS is $948
Zeiss 35/2 ZM is $1,087
Leica 35/2 M is $3,195

zlatko wrote:
It's all relative. That is the intro price and will likely fall. These lenses have all been available for a long time and still cost more:
Zeiss 35/2 ZE (for Canon) is $1,117
Zeiss 35/2 ZS is $948
Zeiss 35/2 ZM is $1,087
Leica 35/2 M is $3,195

True but those lenses are in a bit of a different "tier" as you were than this Canon lens.

cputeq wrote:
True but those lenses are in a bit of a different "tier" as you were than this Canon lens.
Not really. They are produced in lower volume, but don't necessarily perform better. That Zeiss 35/2 ZE ($1,117) was also tested by DxO and scored worse than this new Canon 35/2.

I agree. unless you want to use it for video, the IS at this focal length is not that useful. at 500, you are already pushing it. for me prime needs to either be at least one stop faster than a zoom availabe in the range, or a lot better than any zoom availabe in the focal range. Corner sharpness wide open has very limited application. a fast prime I want good zone a and be sharpness, and good everywhere sharpness stopped down.

kevindar wrote:
for me prime needs to either be at least one stop faster than a zoom availabe in the range, or a lot better than any zoom availabe in the focal range.
It meets your criterion for one stop faster than a zoom in that range. Its other advantage is that it's a heck of a lot smaller and lighter than an f/2.8 zoom in that range. It is also smaller and lighter than any of the 35mm f/1.4 primes for Canon. It's not going to get everyone excited, but for some people it will be a sweet combination of size and performance.

zlatko wrote:
It meets your criterion for one stop faster than a zoom in that range. Its other advantage is that it's a heck of a lot smaller and lighter than an f/2.8 zoom in that range. It is also smaller and lighter than any of the 35mm f/1.4 primes for Canon. It's not going to get everyone excited, but for some people it will be a sweet combination of size and performance.

Of course it's small and light when you only compare it against f/1,4 lenses or big zoom lenses. If you compare it against similar f/2 lenses, or the other Canon 35 f/2 lens it's a different story.
Don't get it wrong. I would like the lens if it had a bit lower price. But it's not very small or light for an f/2. More a normal sized lens

kevindar wrote:
I agree. unless you want to use it for video, the IS at this focal length is not that useful. at 500, you are already pushing it. for me prime needs to either be at least one stop faster than a zoom availabe in the range, or a lot better than any zoom availabe in the focal range. Corner sharpness wide open has very limited application. a fast prime I want good zone a and be sharpness, and good everywhere sharpness stopped down.

I paid more than that for a Zeiss ZE 35/2, and it didn't even have AF, let alone IS. So I feel like the Canon is a deal if it gets below $700, and $600 or less would be my ideal price range. I'm sure it has better IQ than the Zeiss.